Can somebody explain the difference to me. I was just looking at stats and saw that Russell Wilson and RGIII both have higher passer ratings than Matt Ryan yet their QBRs are much lower (33.92 for RGIII, 36.74 for Wilson, 74.5 for Ryan).

QBR is a new rating system that takes into account the situation of the stats...

example.... a TD while getting blown out doesnt really make a difference in the game, and it doesnt in QBR. But that same TD would boost the passing rating alot.. so QBR is more reflective on the QB's impact on the game and not just pure stats

QBR is an ESPN made up stat that was made to "revolutionize" the way the position is evaluated. Like most things on ESPN besides the sports they broadcast - it's just filler. I expect a sports reporting channel to report on sports and not offer assinine opinions or their own created statistical/analytical measurements of how they think a QB should be evaluted - give me good old passer rating any day of the week

Can I have neither? QB Rating is pretty arcane and QBR seems to have holes and some extremes of performances.

Yip both are crap. You can look at raw numbers like yards, TDs, INTs, 3rd down conversions etc and get a feel for what may have happened in a game. But without watching you can't really say definitively how well someone has played. Having a rigid set of rules to quantify success simply doesn't work in a game like football

They're both really bad, and frankly it's a shame that QB rating is ultimately what most people use to evaluate what QB played better than the other. I think most people could form better opinions on QB play if we got rid of it, and instead evaluated on overall offensive points, yards, turnovers, overall completion percentage, and opponents played. Who cares if somebody throws the ball 60 times, but only throws 1TD or have a low YPA? If they're consistently moving the chains and the offense is scoring points it does not matter. QBR does try to normalize this a bit, but the flaws in the system are almost comical in the ways that it rewards and penalizes QB's at times.

QBR is an ESPN made up stat that was made to "revolutionize" the way the position is evaluated. Like most things on ESPN besides the sports they broadcast - it's just filler. I expect a sports reporting channel to report on sports and not offer assinine opinions or their own created statistical/analytical measurements of how they think a QB should be evaluted - give me good old passer rating any day of the week

^ Exactly ^

I don't get why some of the guys here act like the regular passer rating is pure bogus.
It measures the QB's performance, production, in overall passing as accurately as any stat does, since it combines all their throws. It's not a 100% postcard of a game, but it's the best snapshot a particular stat can be.

And last I checked, a TD in the 1st quarter counts for the same 6 as it does in the 3rd quarter or 4th quarter.

Packers Defensive Coordinator believes -in the playoffs- that the QB with the better passer rating is almost always going to win the game.

As CHFF readers know, Passer Rating Differential has an incredible correlation to victory. The No. 1 team in Passer Rating Differential in 2009 was New Orleans (+37.4). They won the Super Bowl. They No. 1 team in Passer Rating Differential in 2010 was Capers' Packers (+31.7). They, too, won the Super Bowl.

Teams who win the Passer Rating Differential battle within a given game, meanwhile, historically win more than 80 percent of all NFL contests (more on that phenomenon during the offseason).

And as we noted recently, the average NFL champion since 1940 was an incredible +27.4 in Passer Rating Differerntial.

I don't get why some of the guys here act like the regular passer rating is pure bogus.
It measures the QB's performance, production, in overall passing as accurately as any stat does, since it combines all their throws. It's not a 100% postcard of a game, but it's the best snapshot a particular stat can be.

And last I checked, a TD in the 1st quarter counts for the same 6 as it does in the 3rd quarter or 4th quarter.

Packers Defensive Coordinator believes -in the playoffs- that the QB with the better passer rating is almost always going to win the game.

But it is still completely flawed. If I run around behind the line of scrimmage for 10 seconds and get sacked for minus 10 yards that doesn't count against me because it wasn't a pass. Yet, if I stand in the pocket, get flushed and throw the ball away I get penalised? So a negative play for the team is somehow better for the QB?

Likewise, I could have a completion percentage of 70%+, I could throw for 9 yards per attempt, I could throw for 300 yards, but for some reason because my RB ran in for all the TDs i get penalised?

No set formula can work to determine who the better player is. This isn't baseball. The guys at Cold Hard Football Facts and PFF and ESPN Inside etc all have their uses. But not everything can be measured by stats. It's just not that type of game. There are way too many variables in football

Not too bad of a list. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it does show which QBs had good seasons. If you take it as just another stat it's actually quite useful. If you expect it to be an end all ranking system, well then you're kind of an idiot.

I don't get why some of the guys here act like the regular passer rating is pure bogus.
It measures the QB's performance, production, in overall passing as accurately as any stat does, since it combines all their throws. It's not a 100% postcard of a game, but it's the best snapshot a particular stat can be.

And last I checked, a TD in the 1st quarter counts for the same 6 as it does in the 3rd quarter or 4th quarter.

Packers Defensive Coordinator believes -in the playoffs- that the QB with the better passer rating is almost always going to win the game.

But it is still completely flawed. If I run around behind the line of scrimmage for 10 seconds and get sacked for minus 10 yards that doesn't count against me because it wasn't a pass. Yet, if I stand in the pocket, get flushed and throw the ball away I get penalised? So a negative play for the team is somehow better for the QB?

Likewise, I could have a completion percentage of 70%+, I could throw for 9 yards per attempt, I could throw for 300 yards, but for some reason because my RB ran in for all the TDs i get penalised?

No set formula can work to determine who the better player is. This isn't baseball. The guys at Cold Hard Football Facts and PFF and ESPN Inside etc all have their uses. But not everything can be measured by stats. It's just not that type of game. There are way too many variables in football

I agree with most of this.

Another thing to take into account the QBR factors running of the QB, and plays like you mentioned "smart" plays like not taking sacks or vice-versa when you take sacks in bad situations... also an INT off a last minute hailmary isnt the same as a dumb throw into double coverage...

I think the QBR is harder for an average person to factor without all of the film, but it is more representative of good QB play since it is not just (x amount of throws x amount of TD's x amount interceptions)

and to the previous poster mentioning a TD in the 1st quarter is the same as in the 4th.. I do not agree...

being competitive in a game and scoring in the 1st is not the same as racking up stats( TD's) when the team is already blown out and playing against the other team's backups

Not too bad of a list. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it does show which QBs had good seasons. If you take it as just another stat it's actually quite useful. If you expect it to be an end all ranking system, well then you're kind of an idiot.

Well summed up. The 1 stat I find most impressive is 'wins', that tell me a lot more than any other stat for a QB, add in wins in the playoffs and you get all you need to know.

Not too bad of a list. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it does show which QBs had good seasons. If you take it as just another stat it's actually quite useful. If you expect it to be an end all ranking system, well then you're kind of an idiot.

Alex Smith was 6 attempts away from being #1 in the NFL (barring an INT or something like that)

2012: 76.199% correlation between Total QBR and Wins. 72.704% correlation between Passer Rating and Wins.

2011: 73.903% correlation between Total QBR and Wins. 78.556% correlation between Passer Rating and Wins.

Combines: 74.481% correlation between Total QBR and Wins. 75.596 correlation between Passer Rating and Wins.

Based on this, both are moderately successful at judging team success. And despite being simpler and using fewer inputs, traditional passer rating has done a slightly better job.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolidGold

Bortlezzzzzzz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monomach

Brilliant letting one of Scott Pioli's henchmen have his own team to ruin. One of the premier GM jobs in the NFL and it gets handed to a stupid **** who makes three facepalm moves for every good one. Awesome. Just like handing a new Mercedes to a 16 year old girl who's already been in three wrecks.

But it is still completely flawed. If I run around behind the line of scrimmage for 10 seconds and get sacked for minus 10 yards that doesn't count against me because it wasn't a pass. Yet, if I stand in the pocket, get flushed and throw the ball away I get penalised? So a negative play for the team is somehow better for the QB?

Likewise, I could have a completion percentage of 70%+, I could throw for 9 yards per attempt, I could throw for 300 yards, but for some reason because my RB ran in for all the TDs i get penalised?

No set formula can work to determine who the better player is. This isn't baseball. The guys at Cold Hard Football Facts and PFF and ESPN Inside etc all have their uses. But not everything can be measured by stats. It's just not that type of game. There are way too many variables in football

#1- no you don't get penalised. Here. This is America. You get penalized.

#2- instead of running around for 10 seconds, getting sacked, how do you account for the QB getting sacked in 2 seconds form a ILB coming free... do you factor in an OL being worse than the other?

#3- you're right, there are a ton of variables in football and those variables are not black & white.

#4- that's why, the passer rating factors in all the throws that the QB made, good, bad or in between. It measures their production or lack thereof.
It's as accurate of a stat as you will find for a QB.

#5- wins are the most important team stat. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson each won a Super Bowl. They weren't better QB's than Dan Marino or Jim Kelly.

I thought the QBR is a good start point, but they can still improve on it.

It is better than the QB rating, since it takes into account the other players on the team, like YAC, distance of throws stuff like that. But the extremes are very devalued. Sure you might be getting blown out in the first half, you score a TD, doesn't really matter, and score another one, defense gets a TD before end of half. All of a sudden it is a game, and your are not getting blown out.

#5- wins are the most important team stat. Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson each won a Super Bowl. They weren't better QB's than Dan Marino or Jim Kelly.

Eh, Brad Johnson was a pretty good QB. You're right that he was no Dan Marino, but more than a few teams have won Super Bowls with worse QBs. He was above the Rypien/Hostetler threshold. I feel like it's not fair for people to lump him in with Trent Dilfer, who was by far the worst QB to win a Super Bowl.

If I can explain it any way, I would say passer rating is like the 40 yard dash time for draft prospects.

It's been around forever, people complete overrate is effectiveness as a grading criterion, it became cliche to a degree, and knowledgeable fans could see the flaws in it.

However like the 40 yd time, it is useful. QBR is an attempt to correct the flaws of passer rating. I don't like it in its current form, however it is a new school stat. I think the metric will be tweaked to improve it. We will never have a different way of calculating passer rating. I could make a very transparent to religion, but obviously there is absolutely no use in that :)

I'm actually warming up to the QBR stats. I'm a little bit skeptical of how they're being produced (it seems difficult to assess context objectively), but overall I'd say the final results are a little bit closer to my personal opinions of the quarterbacks than passer rating stats are. For example, Andrew Luck is 26th in passer rating, below the likes of Ryan Fitzpatrick, but 11 in QBR, while Fitzpatrick drops to 27.